If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yep. Just as there's jack to say Zimmerman approached him because he was black, and not because in a neighborhood with a string of recent burglaries a young guy walking slowly/leisurely through the rain in no hurry, at night, might just arouse some suspicion. He was wrong to confront Martin, not so much to have initial suspicion. Black or white, it raises a legitimate question.

Didn't say that Martin did anything wrong by doing it, of course not, just that there's nothing at all to say he seemed suspicious "because he was black" rather than "because there's a dude leisurely strolling around at night when it's raining". Official security people at, say, a mall or place of business would question that, too. If Zimmerman approached him, it's arguably dickish, but that's not grounds for punches to be thrown.

Didn't say that Martin did anything wrong by doing it, of course not, just that there's nothing at all to say he seemed suspicious "because he was black" rather than "because there's a dude leisurely strolling around at night when it's raining". Official security people at, say, a mall or place of business would question that, too. If Zimmerman approached him, it's arguably dickish, but that's not grounds for punches to be thrown.

I'm not of the crowd who claims that Zimmerman was racist (or cares if he was) -- as I've said, even if he was, it doesn't matter because being racist doesn't have anything to do with the crime he committed, in strict legal terms. That said, I would sooner believe that a guy profiled someone because he was black, than because "it was suspicious that he was walking in the rain." The former at least displays a train of thought that, although ignorant and prejudiced, at least makes an attempt at coherence. The latter just doesn't make any sense at all. Walking in the rain is suspicious; would running the rain have been suspicious? Would a light jog in the rain have been suspicious? What is the proper level of urgency that one is required to walk at so that someone else would not be legally justified in stalking them because they are "suspicious?" Also, it's been said that he was "looking at houses" as he walked by them. My question then would be, where is the appropriate place to look when one is walking, such that one does not provide legal justification for being stalked?

I just feel like all of the reasons he could have been "suspicious" are really post-hoc justifications. One account says there had been a string of robberies in the neighborhood; if that's true, then that's something that could be cause for general concern or wariness, but then you can't just stalk everyone you don't recognize because you are afraid for this general reason. You don't get to turn your neighborhood into a vigilante police state and interrogate random people because of it. Hearing these justifications, I can't help but hear echoes of rape apologists saying to a woman, "look how she was dressed, she was basically asking for it. She was acting like she wanted it, it was a reasonable assumption that she did." It's putting the onus on the victim to prove himself innocent, otherwise the pursuer is assumed to be justified in stalking him by default.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

What you're saying sounds a lot like, "I can't be certain I wouldn't shoot someone who broke into my home/tried to steal from me/was following me/etc".

I would absolutely consider shooting someone who broke into my home. It's really the only thing my handgun is good for.

Originally Posted by Llamas

I'm not saying that I think it's a good idea. He suggested it to me, but I think it's kinda weird and I'd be uncomfortable doing it. But I do live in a city with quite a lot of tourists in summer, so there are a lot of people around and it's not like he follows anyone down secluded roads or anything. My point was simply that nobody would argue that he deserves to be attacked for it, regardless of finding it weird.

I don't find it weird, I find it wrong and creepy as shit. I'd be either very pissed or very uncomfortable if I found out a stranger was following me around in a crowded city. Especially if I were a female tourist.

If he got maced or punched in the face, I probably wouldn't show too much sympathy.

Can someone who opposes stand your ground laws in general please explain to me what's wrong with the concept? Because I still find nothing objectionable.

From wikipedia: "A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation."

Tell me what's wrong with that.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

Can someone who opposes stand your ground laws in general please explain to me what's wrong with the concept? Because I still find nothing objectionable.

From wikipedia: "A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation."

Tell me what's wrong with that.

If you had kept reading that same article, you would see that the part of SYG most people object to pertains specifically to *deadly* force:

Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.

Anyway, most SYG laws are redundant; many states already have what's called a "Castle doctrine," which says you can SYG if your home, or in some cases your workplace, school or vehicle, is attacked (which most people, even liberals, have no issue with, myself included), and so all SYG does is extend that protection to more public places as well.

The issue I have with such extensions is that (A) it's a very easy law to abuse, as you can see if you read up on SYG conviction rate statistics; (B) it encourages vigilante confrontations in public places, i.e. "playing hero;" and (C) in many cases, the exact definition of the parameters for invoking SYG laws are not very well defined (in Florida, it's the clause which says that really, all you need to do is FEEL afraid, you don't actually have to be in danger in order to use deadly force, so long as you can prove you FELT you were in danger). It takes the violence out of the hands of trained professionals and puts it into the hands of untrained, oft-impulsive (and sometimes downright conflict-seeking) civilians.

I don't find it weird, I find it wrong and creepy as shit. I'd be either very pissed or very uncomfortable if I found out a stranger was following me around in a crowded city. Especially if I were a female tourist.

If he got maced or punched in the face, I probably wouldn't show too much sympathy.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that way when I read that.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

I don't find it weird, I find it wrong and creepy as shit. I'd be either very pissed or very uncomfortable if I found out a stranger was following me around in a crowded city. Especially if I were a female tourist.

If he got maced or punched in the face, I probably wouldn't show too much sympathy.

I find it weird how awful you guys think this is. A guy goes for a walk through the crowded city and takes the direction of some girl for a short while (because it's never long before she goes into a cafe or a store, or he loses her, since it's not actually stalking). I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but part of it is that I don't have his charisma. I'm pretty sure he's been noticed before, but never had a problem. Nor should he. He is completely harmless.

My problem with the castle doctrine and shooting people who enter your home is that my niece's boyfriend almost got killed because of it. Teenager sneaks into his girlfriend's house in the middle of the night, the dad (my brother) hears it, comes upstairs and nearly shoots the guy before realizing who he is. And he legally could have killed the guy.
A very drunk homeless guy just kind of wandered into our house one night. We'd forgotten to lock the door, but at the moment, we didn't remember that and thought he'd broken in. We shooed him out, but the castle doctrine again would've allowed us to kill him. What the fuck? How can people support that?

...My problem with the castle doctrine and shooting people who enter your home is that my niece's boyfriend almost got killed because of it. Teenager sneaks into his girlfriend's house in the middle of the night, the dad (my brother) hears it, comes upstairs and nearly shoots the guy before realizing who he is. And he legally could have killed the guy.
A very drunk homeless guy just kind of wandered into our house one night. We'd forgotten to lock the door, but at the moment, we didn't remember that and thought he'd broken in. We shooed him out, but the castle doctrine again would've allowed us to kill him. What the fuck? How can people support that?

How can you possibly not support it? What's the alternative? Hand out fucking cookies and milk when people break in? Both instances you site you support the people who broke into a home. For whatever reason, stupidity included, they broke into a home. Intent is not a consideration to a homeowner who wakes up in the middle of the night and finds a possible threat at 2 am. Are unintended consequences going to happen?...without a doubt. Hell, the makers of air bags knew there was the possibility your finger may be blasted through the back of your fucking head if your picking your nose during an accident. They still save lives. Everything you own may be packed inside this little box we call home. Everything you worked, sacrificed for and ever loved may be in this 40'x70' box. To even consider not having a law allowing deadly force is insane.

I find it weird how awful you guys think this is. A guy goes for a walk through the crowded city and takes the direction of some girl for a short while (because it's never long before she goes into a cafe or a store, or he loses her, since it's not actually stalking). I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but part of it is that I don't have his charisma. I'm pretty sure he's been noticed before, but never had a problem. Nor should he. He is completely harmless.

I find it weird that you see nothing wrong with following strangers. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but the girls he follows don't know that. Seriously, if I were a young girl in a foreign country and some dude was following me around, I'd be fucking terrified.

Just seems like a really good way to make people really uncomfortable.